Sacramento Injury Lawyer Blog

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

In the instant matter, plaintiff cannot sustain this burden of proof. The actions of Dr. Black, were not the cause of plaintiff's claimed injury and damages. The Declaration of Donald Smith, M.D. provides substantial expert evidence that Dr. Black's actions were not causally connected to plaintiff's alleged injuries. The second required element to sustain a cause of action for medical negligence cannot be proven. As a matter of law, the care and treatment rendered by Dr. Black, was not below the standard of care, nor was defendant's care and treatment the cause of plaintiff's claimed injury and damages, and summary judgment must be granted.

In A Medical Malpractice Action, The Party Presenting Uncontradicted Expert Testimony Must Prevail

Where a defendant's expert testimony is uncontradicted, there is no triable issue of fact for the jury to consider, and the defendant must prevail as a matter of law. (Willard v. Hagenmeister, (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 406, 412.) The court in Willard described the preemptive effect of expert testimony in a malpractice action:

"Expert evidence in a malpractice suit is conclusive as to the proof for the prevailing standard of skill and learning in the locality and of the propriety of particular conduct by the practitioner in particular instances because such standard and skill is not a matter of general knowledge and can only be supplied by expert testimony." (Id.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Physician's Post-Op Surgical Care Results In Malpractice, Part 4 of 4" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF CANNOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In order to prevail on a cause of action for medical negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant was negligent by acting below the applicable standard of care, and that this negligence was a cause of plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages. If the plaintiff cannot prove both of these elements, she cannot maintain a cause of action for medical negligence.
As will be demonstrated, Dr. Black, acted within the applicable standard of care and his actions did not cause nor contribute to plaintiff's claimed injuries and damages. Should this Court grant Summary Judgment on either or both grounds, plaintiff's cause of action must fail.

The Issues Of Medical Negligence And Causation Can Only Be Determined By Expert Testimony

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must prove two things in order to prevail. The plaintiff must first prove that the defendant's actions fell below the applicable standard of triable issue of material fact as to the standard of care rendered by defendants, Summary Judgment must be granted in Dr. Black's favor.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Healthcare Facility Sued For Medical Malpractice, Part 3 of 4" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION

Jonathan Black, M.D., is a physician who is Board certified in internal medicine, and practices adult internal medicine at National Medical Clinic and serves as the Medical Director at Community Care and Rehabilitation Center ("CCRC"). Plaintiff filed a Complaint containing one cause of action for medical negligence stemming from the care and treatment associated with a total left knee replacement surgery. As will be demonstrated, plaintiff cannot provide this Court with any competent, admissible evidence that raises a triable issue of material fact. Summary judgment is appropriate.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On November 14, 2008, plaintiff Susan Dean underwent a total left knee replacement surgery, performed by defendant, Jim Hall, M.D. Plaintiff was discharged from National Community Hospital on November 17, 2008, and transferred to CCRC. Defendant, Jonathan Black, M.D.
("Dr. Black") saw the plaintiff on November 20, 2008, at CCRC. At that time Dr. Black noted that plaintiff was in no acute distress. Her knee was clean, dry, and intact. Plaintiff continued to receive physical therapy at CCRC until her discharge date of November 26, 2008.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Post-Op Complications To Knee Replacement Surgery Lead To Sacramento Medical Malpractice Lawsuit, Part 2 of 4" »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Defendant Jonathan Black, M.D.'s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Defendant, Jonathan Black, M.D., will move this Court for an Order granting Summary Judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff, Susan Dean.

This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c on the grounds that the care and treatment provided by defendant, Jonathan Black, M.D., at all times complied with the applicable standard of care in the community and that the care and treatment was not causally related to the damages claimed by plaintiff. As such, there are no triable issues of material fact and defendant, Jonathan Black, M.D., is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

This Motion is based on this Notice; the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence; and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion.

WHEREFORE, defendant, Jonathan Black, M.D., prays this Motion be granted and that judgment be entered in his favor against plaintiff plus costs, as taxed. (See Part 2 of 4.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DISCUSSION

California Evidence Code Section 720 requires that an expert must have "special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates."

Mr. Hall has no education, experience or other qualifications as an engineer, and does not otherwise qualify to determine impact speeds, vehicle speeds, change in velocity of the vehicles, or the forces involved in the collision. Mr. Hall did not examine the accident scene, nor is there a police report in this case that would have provided him with physical evidence at the scene of the accident. His methodology for computing speeds was to look at photographs of the damage to the respective vehicles, use a magnifying glass to estimate the amount of inches of damage, and then utilize a formula on a preprinted form entitled "Low Speed Collsion (sic) Worksheet"; however, the formula begins with an estimated value of .25 for a coefficient of restitution, which he supplied based upon his memory of having read such a value on a NHTSA website for 2001-2006 Honda Civic automobiles.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Experts Battle In Sacramento Man's Car Accident Trial, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

Plaintiffs John and Anna Greene’s Motion in Limine Number1 to Exclude Testimony of Bill Hall

INTRODUCTION

Defendants have designated Bill Hall, as an expert witness, who intends to give opinions on matters that are far beyond his qualifications and far beyond his expertise. Mr. Hall has no formal education beyond high school, and had worked as a police officer for the city of Sacramento for 15 years. Although Mr. Hall has taken some courses in accident reconstruction, there are no accident reconstruction issues in this case. This case involves a very clear rear end impact to a stopped vehicle. Extracts from Mr. Hall's deposition relating to his lack of qualifications are referenced herein.

Mr. Hall intends to give unqualified opinions in the following areas:

1. An engineering analysis, that calculates the speed of the two vehicles involved in the collision, based upon vehicle damage photographs that he reviewed months after the collision and engineering formulae and concepts that he is not qualified to analyze; and,

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Man Involved In Rear End Car Accident, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

ARGUMENT

Dr. Lee's opinions about the reasonableness of Plaintiff's medical bills must be excluded, California Evidence Code § 803, because they are not based on special knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or matters perceived by, or personally known or made known to him, that are if a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming such opinions, California Evidence Code § 801(b).

In his deposition, Dr. Lee admitted that he had no access or exposure to Plaintiff's medical bills or any other relevant information, Naples Restaurant, Inc. v Coberly Ford (1968) 259 Cal App 2d 881, 66 Cal Rptr 835, that his opinions are based solely on irrelevant, conjectural and speculative data, Roscoe Moss Co. v. Jenkins (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 369, 130 P.2d 477; Hyatt v Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal App 3d 325, 145 Cal Rptr 47, Stephen v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 134 Cal App 4th 1363, 37 Cal Rptr 3d 9, and that he has no experience or expertise in the relevant subject matter, Maatuk v. Guttman (2009) 173 Cal App 4th 1191, 93 Cal Rptr 3d 381.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Insurance Company Tries To Deny Payment Of Sacramento Woman's Car Accident Expenses, Part 7 of 7" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)

DR. LEE SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EXPRESSING OPINIONS ABOUT THE REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL BILLS BECAUSE INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS, AND THOSE OPINIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE

A plaintiff may introduce evidence of the amounts billed by health care providers, because they reflect on the nature and extent of his or her injuries, help jurors assess overall general damages, and give them an accurate picture of the extent of the plaintiffs injuries Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635; Nishihama v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 93 Cal.App.4th 298; Greer v. Hossam Ali Buzgheia, (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1150; 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal App 4th 1288.

On the other hand, it is reversible error to allow a defendant to admit collateral source cash payments into evidence, limit Plaintiffs' recovery of special damages for medical expenses to the amounts paid by a financial services company to purchase the accounts from medical providers, or prevent the plaintiff from arguing to the jury that the full amounts billed represent the reasonable value of the medicals services provided, Olsen v. Reid, (2008) 164 Cal.App. 4th 200; Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 Cal.App. 4th 1288.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Catastrophic Medical Costs At Issue In Sacramento Woman's Auto Accident Lawsuit, Part 6 of 7" »